Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Syria

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 24 Oct 2010, 06:34
Is Syria the only socialist country currently in the middle east and should we support it and the Ba'ath party? Personally I think we should support the Syrian government and Ba'ath party. They are doing a good job and the Syrian Ba'ath party works with the Syrian communist party instead of fighting it like the Iraq Ba'ath party did.
Image

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 25 Oct 2010, 05:30
Um, Well, I don't think the Syrian Ba'ath party is in way similar to that of the Sadamist Ba'ath Party. Just as I don't think that Pol Pot was much of a Socialist either. Are they wishing to achieve Socialism? Perhaps, in a way. Similar to the way that socialism may be achieved in South America. They are not going to achieve communism. They are not communists. This is more similar to the Social Democrats we see in most societies. If we look to history, Lenin separated himself from the Mensheviks for the same reason I don't wholeheartedly support the Ba'ath Party: A Party of like minded individuals wishing to attain the same goal will succeed and succeed much sooner than a group of people that align themselves for a short term solution.

Fidel aligned himself with individuals that were not like minded -during the insurrection of Cuba. Lenin separated himself from those individuals that ended up being the Mensheviks before hand.

It is of my opinion that insurrectionists should not align themselves with SD's as they are against armed insurrection. This would be a massive division in a critical time of a revolution. The Ba'ath party may endorse some of the things that the CP of Syria stands for, but if it came down to the Communists wanting to overthrow the quasi capitalist SD party of that country, they would be getting as much aide from the west as they could. Communists should not want Socialism. They need Socialism as a gateway towards a stateless, classless society where the workers control the means of production. Socialists want Socialism to remain in place indefinitely, and SD's want capitalism to pay for social programs but in no way want what communism has to offer. They want the mistakes of the past to remain present and expect different people on the same platform to achieve different results. This, comrades, is the definition of Insanity. SD's want the comfort of not having anything really change so that no one gets hurt and when it inevitably fails, they want someone around to blame and (Whoopee!!!) vote him out of office. This self perpetuating system of getting nothing accomplished will do just that-Nothing.

The Only way to achieve Communism is via insurrection.

Do I support what they are doing now? Sure why not. But I'd sooner Enlist in the FARC than the Ba'ath party.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 86
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Oct 2010, 15:30
Pioneer
Post 25 Oct 2010, 17:27
In my opinion, communists should support Syria's anti-imperialist stand, but not its regime. It is a military dictatorship covering behind socialism. History has many examples of fascist dictatorships that considered themselves socialist.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 27 Oct 2010, 04:25
The Ba'ath Party is not fascist hiding behind socialism the constitution set up by them is really socialist.
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/sy00000_.html

And Baathist Syria and the Ba'ath party might not be communism but they are still socialist and when the time comes they could easily switch to communism.
Image

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 27 Oct 2010, 04:40
Quote:
and when the time comes they could easily switch to communism


Provided the Bourgeoisie went out and collectively shot themselves..
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 27 Oct 2010, 05:02
Quote:
Provided the Bourgeoisie went out and collectively shot themselves..

The working class of Syria can do this.
Image

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 27 Oct 2010, 05:48
Quote:
The working class of Syria can do this.


Yes, This I agree with.

However, it won't be that easy. insurrection is never easy..
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 86
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Oct 2010, 15:30
Pioneer
Post 27 Oct 2010, 20:53
Quote:
The Ba'ath Party is not fascist hiding behind socialism the constitution set up by them is really socialist.

I was only making an example, of course the Ba'ath Party is not fascist. Anyway I don't think communists should give up the struggle for real socialism only because the government of their country calls itself socialist and conducts a policy of nationalization. That's more State capitalism than socialism.
Soviet cogitations: 200
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Sep 2010, 04:15
Pioneer
Post 28 Oct 2010, 23:33
Quote:
The Ba'ath Party is not fascist hiding behind socialism the constitution set up by them is really socialist.
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/sy00000_.html


The constitution of India declares itself to be a socialist state too- what is your point? It takes more than some nice words in the constitution- it needs to be carried out in action. Sri Lanka calls itself the "Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka" officially, and as we all know the National Socialists... but that doesn't in itself make themselves socialist.

For what it's worth the Hafez al-Assad (the first leader) was very much pro-Soviet and tried to set up an economy similar to the USSR, though most of his support was out of nationalism and being a bulwark against Israel. To his credit he didn't dick around like the Iraq Ba'ath and massacre the Communists out of existence, but kept them in partnership with the government. It's also worth noting that the Syrian Ba'ath party had piss-poor relations with the Iraq Ba'ath party- in fact Syria and Iraq terminated diplomatic relations with one another and trade was extremely limited until after the regime fell to the Americans in 2003. His son however, the current leader Bashar Al-Assad has been moving the country to liberalizing the economy and I suspect he wants to make it similar to China.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 29 Oct 2010, 00:51
Quote:
the current leader Bashar Al-Assad has been moving the country to liberalizing the economy and I suspect he wants to make it similar to China.

He hasn't liberalized the economy that much just some private banking and letting foreign companies in the oil sector. Syria is not on the path China went.
Image

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
Soviet cogitations: 200
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Sep 2010, 04:15
Pioneer
Post 29 Oct 2010, 02:25
Quote:
He hasn't liberalized the economy that much just some private banking and letting foreign companies in the oil sector. Syria is not on the path China went.


It's only because they've just recently started doing so- just as China began with Deng's ascent to power in 1980, Bashir has started just a decade ago. They are gradual, market liberalization just as China did. Give it awhile and it will be like any other mixed economy in the world.
The Ba'ath Party, Iraq or Syria branches, aren't these light-holders of socialism you perceive them to be, or at least their current incarnations.
I mean where is it that show they are socialist? Even under the elder Assad it just seemed to be state capitalism, and his son has gone away from that and is embracing "modernization"- opening up private work, allowing for more enterprises, trying to woo foreign inversters, while keeping the corrupt state structure.

And you tell me that isn't like China?

There was no concept of proletarian rule, or even equal rights- Kurdish minorities in Syria are severely repressed. Hell, I guess you could say the only place socialism is being applied in Syria is on the Kurds, as they can't legally own or rent anything
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 86
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Oct 2010, 15:30
Pioneer
Post 30 Oct 2010, 18:18
Still, in my opinion, viewing Syria as socialist is simply nonsense


We should regard Lybia, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka...
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3711
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2006, 04:49
Ideology: Juche
Old Bolshevik
Post 31 Oct 2010, 04:41
Also, it is believed that the U.S. has secret torture prisons there because Syria is where Maher Arar was sent. There is no reason to support the United State's so-called "War on Terror", especially when it involves torturing people for the C.I.A.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 31 Oct 2010, 05:16
Quote:
Also, it is believed that the U.S. has secret torture prisons there

Why would the USA and CIA have torture priosons in a country on their list of "states that sponsor terrorism".
Image

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
Soviet cogitations: 272
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Feb 2010, 13:54
Komsomol
Post 01 Nov 2010, 13:22
Ultor Bolshevik said
Quote:
We should regard Lybia, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka...

Libya socialist? you need to check out what Libya does. Libya is just another country run by a dictator who some how calls it socialist. how is it socialist ? If india is socialist then socialism sucks. Do you know how rich the state is yet how poor the people are ? I do not know baout Bangledesh nor about sri lank i just know sri lanka is a poor country. But man are you serious or were you joking/
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 01 Nov 2010, 21:04
Quote:
Libya socialist? you need to check out what Libya does. Libya is just another country run by a dictator who some how calls it socialist.

How is Libya run by a dictator? Libya is a very democratic country every citizen gets represented. Have you tried reading the green book?
http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb.htm
Image

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
Soviet cogitations: 272
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Feb 2010, 13:54
Komsomol
Post 03 Nov 2010, 13:02
Thanks for the link i will read it soon.
Just a question Red Brigade was i right that the other country's i listed are not socialist ? Just curious :P
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 03 Nov 2010, 16:55
Yeah they aren't socialist more like social-democrats.
Image

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 86
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Oct 2010, 15:30
Pioneer
Post 04 Nov 2010, 18:07
Quote:
Libya socialist? you need to check out what Libya does. Libya is just another country run by a dictator who some how calls it socialist. how is it socialist ? If india is socialist then socialism sucks. Do you know how rich the state is yet how poor the people are ? I do not know baout Bangledesh nor about sri lank i just know sri lanka is a poor country. But man are you serious or were you joking/

well... I was not saying that Libya, Sri Lanka, India, and so on are socialist countries. I was saying that, if Syria should be regarded as socialist only because it has socialism in its Constitution, we should do the same with the other States I mentioned.

And I keep saying Qaddafi is a dictator, albeit the said political system of Lybia. He is even the head of State by virtue of his "post" as Leader of the Revolution... a post to which he is not elected, and from which he cannot be dismissed.
Soviet cogitations: 200
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Sep 2010, 04:15
Pioneer
Post 05 Nov 2010, 01:06
Yeah, you're going to need a lot more to look at beyond what they declare in some paper. Need to see how they do it in reality, what the social relations are existing, etc. At best Syria is state-capitalist with a nationalist bent.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.